[BlueApple]

Currently I have Leopard installed. However, when I upgrade to Snow Leopard, I was thinking to completely erase my installed leopard, is it possible?

[Iago]

10.5 needs to be installed on your system for Snow Leopard (10.6) to install. 10.6 will detect 10.5 and give you the choice of an archive and install or erase and install.

[Motor]

Does anyone know if you will need your Leopard installation DVD if you want to reinstall Snow Leopard in the future?

[Iago]

Maybe, but nobody seems to know for certain. I wouldn't have thought so, but better safe than sorry.

[Motor]

Thanks for the link. Although it's not a big deal either way, my guess is that Apple will not make you prove that you have a copy of Leopard every time. I think they would rather keep things simple than make sure everyone is playing fair.

[feidhlim1986]

Well with the GM Seed you can do a clean install. Boot from the DVD, erase HDD and then install.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by feidhlim1986 Well with the GM Seed you can do a clean install. Boot from the DVD, erase HDD and then install.

GM Seed ≠ Upgrade Disc. Developers are a special case.

If you buy the $29 "upgrade" you likely will need to have 10.5 installed before starting. This means no installing onto bare drives, but you should be able to erase the drive during the same session. It's standard practice for Apple's "up to date" discs to check for the previous version to be installed before progressing; I strongly suspect the same will apply here given how it's been advertised.

If you buy the full-price $169 "box set", though, you likely won't need 10.5 to be installed first.

Direct from Apple's store description:

Find out which upgrade is right for you. Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard): Upgrade your Mac by purchasing Mac OS X Snow Leopard for $29 Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger): Upgrade by purchasing the Mac Box Set, which includes Snow Leopard, iLife ’09, and iWork ’09, for just $169.

Of course, this is still (damn you Apple!) just speculation until we get the discs in our hands on Friday.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad If you buy the full-price $169 "box set", though, you likely won't need 10.5 to be installed first.

I should hope not, since they say it works with Tiger

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Roboman I should hope not, since they say it works with Tiger

I know, right?

I'd actually originally written that line without the "likely", but there's so little technical information available about this upgrade process that I thought it necessary to use that qualifier. Who knows? Maybe the "box set" has a full install disc for 10.5 as well as the upgrade-only disc of 10.6, meaning you have to go from 10.4 to 10.5 before 10.6? Crazy, yes, but I wouldn't put it past Apple.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad I'd actually originally written that like without that "likely" qualifier, but there's so little technical information available about this upgrade that I thought it necessary to point that out. Who knows? Maybe the box set has a full install disc for 10.5 as well as the upgrade-only disc of 10.6, meaning you have to go from 10.4 to 10.5 before 10.6? Crazy, yes, but I wouldn't put it past Apple.

That makes sense, like if they had a lot of the Leopard Box Set discs already pressed or something.

Wait - no, it really doesn't, because it's not like the cost of pressing Snow Leopard to a disc is any different from the cost of just re-pressing the Box Set disc. Who knows?

[thegeriatric]

Just a thought, I bought a "retail" copy of leopard to upgrade from Tiger.

I will buy a upgrade copy of Snow Leopard, following the install, if I should need to re-install, I can't imagine needing the original Leopard disc, As it's a "retail" copy I would be quite within my rights to sell it on.

Wouldn't I?

Like I said just a thought.

[Brad]

If you buy the $169 box set, yes, it would make sense to sell off your copy of 10.5.

The $29 version is an upgrade-only copy, though, as far as we can tell, and you may still need your 10.5 disc should something catastrophic happen and you need to install to a bare drive.

But, sure, you can probably sell your old disc if you don't think that will ever happen.

[Banana]

I'm just itty bitsy disappointed there's no family set that would upgrade all non-intel Mac to 10.5 and intel Mac to SL, though I suppose it isn't really that surprising.

An unrelated question, though...

Way back when the Intel transition was announced, there was some speculation about 'yellow box' (?) where Mac OS X could be compiled for any hardware with less effort or whatever. Considering that SL is intel-only, would that debunk the 'yellow box' if it even existed at all?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Way back when the Intel transition was announced, there was some speculation about 'yellow box' (?) where Mac OS X could be compiled for any hardware with less effort or whatever. Considering that SL is intel-only, would that debunk the 'yellow box' if it even existed at all?

Mac OS X had always been compiled for Intel processors, but those builds were kept secret at Apple HQ. Apple just chose not to release an Intel-compatible version publicly until 10.4 for strategic reasons. This is unsurprising since NeXTSTEP was itself x86-based and the early versions of the Mac OS X developer tools still had vestigial options for x86 processors.

Yellow Box was something completely different. Yellow Box was a set of libraries for Rhapsody (what would later become Cocoa) that famously was ported to run on Windows. This had the potential to make porting software from Mac to Windows incredibly simple.



If you squint, you'll realize you're looking at an old version of Interface Builder on Windows XP. Yellow Box was indeed very real.

As for this...

Originally Posted by Banana there was some speculation [...] where Mac OS X could be compiled for any hardware with less effort or whatever. Considering that SL is intel-only, would that debunk [that claim]?

Nope. Even today Apple may well keep on compiling PowerPC versions of Mac OS X in its labs, just as it was keeping the Intel version running. In fact, it behooves them to maintain CPU-platform-agnostic code because that enables them to build awesome things like... the iPhone!! Remember that the iPhone is basically running a modified, slimmed-down version of Mac OS X. Yet, the iPhone has neither a PowerPC nor an Intel processor; it uses ARM.

So, Mac OS X currently probably compiles on at least six processor instruction sets in Apple's labs. PowerPC 32-bit, PowerPC 64-bit, IA-32, x86-64, ARMv6, and ARMv7. Who knows what other platforms Apple may secretly be working on supporting?

[Banana]

Thanks for the recap, Brad. I was kind of fuzzy; they were talking about four boxes back then and I am sure I got some boxes mixed up even with stuff that weren't applicable to any one of boxes.

Still, I'm not so sure why they decided that SL would be intel-only if it was possible to compile Mac OS X for the PPC, beyond the obvious consideration of size (rebuttal: in FAT days, they had utilities to strip off the unneeded bits) and/or cost of support (probably the best argument, I suppose).

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Still, I'm not so sure why they decided that SL would be intel-only if it was possible to compile Mac OS X for the PPC

Easy. Two words: planned obsolescence.

This is just a kick in the pants for older Mac owners to pay up for new hardware. Remember that Apple's software is mostly just a vehicle for selling Apple's hardware!

[Banana]

Even better.

[Robo]

I am not super-knowledgeable like some of you but does supporting only Intel processors let Apple make 10.6 use less hard disk space? I know they're saying it is like 6GB smaller and how that would work is deep magic to me. Does the PowerPC code take up hard drive space, or is that not really an issue?

[Miko]

Oh for sure! you would reduce the size by half of the OS give or take if you only have to install for Intel Macs. Remember when they still shipped Classic with OSX? almost the same principal applies here get rid of the dead weight to put it bluntly. I'm sure they have done more under the hood to also optimize the 10.6 install size.

This is a no brainer and they should say "by not having to support PowerPC we were able to cut the OS size by half". They are making it sound as if overhauling the whole thing alone cut the size.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Miko Oh for sure! you would reduce the size by half of the OS give or take if you only have to install for Intel Macs.

Wrong! Sorry, I get tired of seeing this misinformation.

The binaries may get cut roughly in half, but the localizations and other non-CPU-specific resources still account for a huge chunk of the install size.

For example, Safari.app is 78.9 MB on my Mac, but only 5.8 MB of it are the "fat" executable file. 4.1 MB of it are images and 68.5 MB of it are localizations. The English localization alone is 4.9 MB and it looks like there are a total of 18 localized languages in here; some are larger or smaller than others.

So, if you really are interested in saving space, choose an English-only (or whatever is your native tongue) installation or go use a third-party utility that deletes all the unwanted localizations from your system.

[Miko]

Originally Posted by Brad Wrong! Sorry, I get tired of seeing this misinformation.

Misinformation? Roboman asked if doing away with the PowerPC support really contributes to the reduction in file size on the HD. I stated that it does, but is not the only factor in the weight loss which I think is fair to say seeing how an universal binary servicing two system architectures will always be larger in size than just a single one. We are not just talking about applications here isn't the whole OS more or less considered Universal or else how could you migrate your Mac from PPC to Intel or vice versa?

Getting rid of the localized languages is nothing new, but you would have to think that Apple prides itself on the multi language support so electing to install just one is fine, but should not be required to meet the disk saving features of 10.6, in the end you should shed even more by taking that route.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad So, if you really are interested in saving space, choose an English-only (or whatever is your native tongue) installation or go use a third-party utility that deletes all the unwanted localizations from your system.

Interesting! I have plenty of hard drive space on my new Mac mini but I will keep that in mind for the future.

So WRT the hard disk space reduction in Snow Leopard, a little bit of it might be due to the fact that they removed PowerPC support, but most of it is due to...other things? So it is basically planned obsolescence for PowerPC-based Macs then. But I'm not complaining, because I haven't had a PowerPC Mac since 2006. At this pace, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 10.7 drops support for 32-bit (Core 1) processors too!

[Miko]

Originally Posted by Roboman At this pace, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 10.7 drops support for 32-bit (Core 1) processors too!

They won't stop supporting them, they will just no longer meet their system requirements!! Grand Central Dispatch hints to that.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman So WRT the hard disk space reduction in Snow Leopard, a little bit of it might be due to the fact that they removed PowerPC support, but most of it is due to...other things?

Yes. HFS+ transparent compression, for instance.

Originally Posted by Miko Misinformation? Roboman asked if doing away with the PowerPC support really contributes to the reduction in file size on the HD. I stated that it does, but is not the only factor in the weight loss

That is not what you said. Here's what Brad quoted:

Originally Posted by Miko Oh for sure! you would reduce the size by half of the OS give or take if you only have to install for Intel Macs.

Maybe Brad and I are both reading this wrong, but "only having to install it for Intel Macs" definitely doesn't reduce by half, not even "give or take". It shaves off maybe 20%, probably not even that.

[Miko]

Chucker and Brad, perhaps I misstated or didn't include enough details in my reply or maybe you guys just want to flex your muscle on the matter, which I look for as well. But I think to say this was misinformation is a bit of a stretch.

Just like when quoting in news reports and articles you should not take it out of context. Roboman asked...

I am not super-knowledgeable like some of you but does supporting only Intel processors let Apple make 10.6 use less hard disk space? I know they're saying it is like 6GB smaller and how that would work is deep magic to me. Does the PowerPC code take up hard drive space, or is that not really an issue?

Now here's what we know 10.6 only supports Intel only Macs so right there you can deduce that without going into details of binaries, localization or app file sizes, if Apple wanted to reduce the install size of the OS they could of done it starting with 10.5. Steve Jobs even said that part of the reason to switch to Intel chips was to be able to make the products we like for the coustomers. I would think a smaller footprint is part of that equation.

What I said as you both semi-quoted. "Oh for sure! you would reduce the size by half of the OS give or take if you only have to install for Intel Macs. Remember when they still shipped Classic with OSX? almost the same principal applies here get rid of the dead weight to put it bluntly. I'm sure they have done more under the hood to also optimize the 10.6 install size.

This is a no brainer and they should say "by not having to support PowerPC we were able to cut the OS size by half". They are making it sound as if overhauling the whole thing alone cut the size".

Then Brad said "Wrong! Sorry, I get tired of seeing this misinformation".

Making it seem that my statement is 100% wrong, which I don't agree with. Brad or you could of added to my reply by saying something like "Not only will supporting Intel only Macs reduce the install size, but doing away with language localization? and HFS+ transparent compression"....

By the way the system install footprint of 10.3 was about 2.2GB and my 10.5.8 system folder is 4.25GB, what was the big change between 10.3 and 10.4?

Anyhow back to the regularly scheduled program. I don't want to derail the this thread.

[chucker]

I don't know why you're getting so hung up on this. You made a misleading statement that many have made, based on an assumption (which many have made) that is not correct.

Originally Posted by Miko Now here's what we know 10.6 only supports Intel only Macs so right there you can deduce that without going into details of binaries, localization or app file sizes, if Apple wanted to reduce the install size of the OS they could of done it starting with 10.5. Steve Jobs even said that part of the reason to switch to Intel chips was to be able to make the products we like for the coustomers. I would think a smaller footprint is part of that equation.

Nobody is arguing that removing PowerPC code doesn't result in a smaller footprint.

What I said as you both semi-quoted. "Oh for sure! you would reduce the size by half of the OS give or take if you only have to install for Intel Macs.

And that's simply wrong.

Remember when they still shipped Classic with OSX? almost the same principal applies here

No. That's precisely what Brad has been trying to tell you. Mac OS X for PowerPC is not a wholly separate OS the way Mac OS 9 in the Classic environment was. As such, it doesn't take up the equivalent space of a wholly separate OS. It doesn't even take up half the space.

This is a no brainer and they should say "by not having to support PowerPC we were able to cut the OS size by half".

Which would be a lie, and a claim they have never made.

They are making it sound as if overhauling the whole thing alone cut the size".

And that would be far more accurate.

[Miko]

True I stand corrected, not having to support PPC doesn't have anything to do with the smaller file size of 10.6 and to say that is indeed misleading.

[Dorian Gray]

I reinstall the OS on every new Mac, simply to get rid of the languages and printer drivers that I don't need. My Leopard install took about 6.4 GB after doing this. Printer drivers alone take over 3 GB, if I remember correctly. 6.4 GB is still much larger than Panther and Tiger though, as Miko noted above.

Leopard installed in about 20 minutes from the DVD. I was amazed!

[Chris A]

Pardon me if this has already been posted, but here's what OWC sent out today"

10.6 requires that you have an Intel processor based Mac with 1GB or more memory installed.

If you currently have Apple OS 10.5.x 'Leopard':
Apple OS 10.6 for Single User - $28.79
Apple OS 10.6 for 'Family' 5-User - $49.00

One common question has been if the '10.5 Upgrade' version allows for a clean install of the new OS. The answer is yes! The 'upgrade' version simply makes you show that you currently have the 10.5 OS. 10.6 is a full new OS install that fully replaces your 10.5/previous OS install. This is not an update installer that just updates part of the existing OS files.

If your current OS is 10.4.x 'Tiger' Apple has the following box set options:
Apple OS 10.6 + Apple iLife 09 + Apple iWorks for single user - $164.99
Apple OS 10.6 + Apple iLife 09 + Apple iWorks for 'Family' 5-user - $227.99

Apple does not currently have a 10.6 Only option available for those with 10.4.x.

You can find early information and ongoing coverage of the new OS via our Blog:
http://blog.macsales.com/

[Kraetos]

Bah. This whole upgrade bullshit isn't worth the trouble of making a few old Tiger users pay up.

We've been making fun of Windows "upgrades" for years and here comes Apple, giving all their users a miniature version of the same headache.

If the $29 Snow Leopard disc doesn't work unless it detects Leopard, now I have to go buy the Box Set and pay for iLife and iWork—which I already have—because I have the audacity to want ONE install disc that Just Works™.

At least if I'm using Windows, I can get a full disc without paying for other stuff I may or may not have/want.

Hopefully the Leopard detection works the same way as the family packs do—the honor system. Because having upgrade and full version discs in the wild is a tech-support nightmare waiting to happen.

Have a Mac which shipped with Tiger which you need to wipe? Get ready to install all three in order if you don't have iLife discs, because retail discs don't have iLife.

We pay extra for Apple products because we want to avoid this opaque bullshit.



/rant